Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

civil rights, civil liberties, and other guarantees under the U.S.

Constitution. reauthorization and join my colleagues in advocating the same.

For these reasons, I strongly object to the

RESPONSE BY AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL TO REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUESTED BY CHAIRMAN SENSENBRENNER

[blocks in formation]

Thank you inviting Amnesty International to testify before the House Committee on the Judiciary on June 10. 2005 regarding reauthorizing or amending the USA PATRIOT Act On behalf of Amnesty International. I write in response to your request for additional materials

The Committee requested information on librarians who have received law enforcement requests. Amnesty International USA and other organizations have organized joint forums across the country at which citizens have come forward with concerns about the PATRIOT Act. Among those who have come forward are librarians who have expressed concerns about their obligations in current law. These citizens have shown courage by coming forward. In particular they have raised questions and concerns about section 215 of the PATRIOT Act which makes it a crime to reveal specific orders received from law enforcement.

This is why it is why the mere existence of such provisions in the PATRIOT Act have the effect of preventing enjoymem of basic human rights, such as freedom of expression, conscience, assembly, press, and religion so vital to preserving truth and security. Abridging such freedoms prevents the informed citizenry that Thomas Jefferson and others have pointed out is so essential to effective democracy. Because the PATRIOT Act cloaks law enforcement orders in secrecy, it is difficult to measure the true impact of this provision. The University of Illinois Library Research Center has conducted research that is publicly available and indicates that librarians have received formal orders under section 215.

In addition to the chilling effect referenced above, such expansions of government power have made it unnecessary to invoke formally provisions such as section 215. Many librarians are keenly aware of the government's new powers to request records on patrons and of their criminal liability either for failing to respond or for disclosing the request Section 215. These expanded powers make it much more difficult to resist even "informal" requests from law enforcement to "voluntarily" turn over information on patrons. Security is not enhanced when the US. government is in an adversarial relationship with either the nation's librarians or library patrons. As FBI Director Mueller's own statements indicate, librarians work with law enforcement to protect their communities, but they also have a professional and legal obligation to protect the privacy of their patrons.

The prohibitions placed on librarians to report requests and the secrecy imposed by the PATRIOT Act, make it impossible to estimate how many requests are occurring and whether they are justified. The law also makes it extremely difficult for Congress to exercise meaningful oversight in this area. As indicated by the House's bipartisan passage of Rep. Sanders' Freedom to Read amendment, such overbroad provisions of the PATRIOT Act are increasingly seen as such and should be sunsetted or amended to be realigned with common sense security requirements and rights otherwise protected in the U.S. Constitution and international law.

Sincerely,

Chip Pitts

[blocks in formation]

On behalf of Amnesty International, thank you for the invitation to testify before the House Committee on the Judiciary on June 10, 2005, on "Oversight of the USA Patriot Act." I appreciate the opportunity to clarify an issue raised during the question and answer session of the hearing.

Congressman Pence questioned Mr. Chip Pitts, who serves as the current Chair of the Board for Amnesty International USA, regarding Amnesty International's characterization of the mistreatment of detainees. Mr. Pitts made the point that Amnesty International is concerned about the pattern of mistreatment of detainees held not only in Guantanamo but also in Iraq. Afghanistan, and elsewhere. Mr. Pitts referenced some of the controversial interrogation techniques that Secretary Rumsfeld approved, which we now know included stripping, isolation, hooding, stress positions, sensory deprivation, and use of dogs. Mr. Pitts cited, as an example of the consequences of these US policies, the death of “ghost detainee” Manadel al-Jamadi, a case listed among many of concern in Amnesty International's recent report "Guantanamo and Beyond: The continuing pursuit of unchecked power."

According to Amnesty International reports, the information on this case is as follows: Manadel al-Jamadi died in Abu Ghraib prison on November 4, 2003. The autopsy report concluded that his "external injuries are consistent with injuries sustained during apprehension. Ligature injuries are present on the wrists and ankles. Fractures of the ribs and a contusion of the left lung imply significant blunt force injuries of the thorax and likely resulted in impaired respiration. According to investigative agents, interviews taken from individuals present at the prison during the interrogation indicate that a hood made of synthetic material was placed over the head and neck of the detainee. This likely resulted in further compromise of effective respiration.... The cause of death is blunt force injuries of the torso complicated by compromised respiration. The manner of death is homicide." He was a "ghost detainee" brought into the prison by the CIA and left unregistered and untreated for injuries sustained on arrest. Seven Navy Seals confessed to assaulting the detainee. The army investigation was closed and referred to the Naval Criminal Investigation Service. Several Navy personnel have been charged.

Amnesty International believes that this and other cases point to the need for an independent

investigation. Thank you for the opportunity to provide Amnesty International's information on this case. We welcome the opportunity to work with you further.

Sincerely,

Alexandra Arriaga

Associate Deputy Executive Director
and Director of Government Relations

"BEHIND THE WIRE” SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY DEBORAH PEARLSTEIN, DIRECTOR, U.S. LAW AND SECURITY PROGRAM

human rights first

FORMERLY THE LAWYERS COMMITTEE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS

Behind
the Wire

AN UPDATE TO ENDING SECRET DETENTIONS

March 2005

Written by Deborah Pearlstein and Priti Patel

About Us

For nearly 30 years, Human Rights First (formerly the
Lawyers Committee for Human Rights) has worked in the
United States and abroad to create a secure and humane
world by advancing justice, human dignity and respect for
the rule of law. We support human rights activists who
fight for basic freedoms and peaceful change at the local
level; protect refugees in flight from persecution and
repression; help build a strong international system of
justice and accountability, and make sure human rights
laws and principles are enforced in the United States
and abroad.

Acknowledgements

This report was written by Deborah Pearlstein and Priti
Patel.

Others who contributed to the report are Michael
McClintock, Elisa Massimino, Michael Posner, Avi Cover,
Ken Hurwitz, Cynthia Burns, Stacy Kim, Charlotte Allen,
Aziz Rana, Benjamin Hensler and Stephen Townley.
We wish to thank the contributors whose funding made
this report possible: The Atlantic Philanthropies, The Herb
Block Foundation, FJC - A Donor Advised Fund, Ford
Foundation, Horace W. Goldsmith Foundation, The Arthur
Helton Fellowship, William and Flora Hewlett Foundation,
Jeht Foundation, John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur
Foundation, The John Merck Fund, Open Society Institute,
The Overbrook Foundation, The Scherman Foundation.

[blocks in formation]
« ÎnapoiContinuă »